On July 6, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
discussed the third External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO).

The purpose of the evaluation was to re-assess the effectiveness of the IEO
and to consider possible improvements to its effectiveness, mandate, operational
modalities, and terms of reference.

The independent team of experts reviewing the IEO comprised Donald Kaberuka (Chair), currently a Special Envoy:
Financing the African Union and the Peace Fund and former President of the
African Development Bank (2005–15); Chia Der Jiun,
Assistant Managing Director at the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and Pernilla Meyersson, Deputy Chief of Staff at the General
Secretariat of Sveriges Riksbank.

Their review was the third external evaluation of the IEO. The first
evaluation, chaired by former U.S. Executive Director Karin Lissakers, was
published in 2006. The second evaluation, chaired by former UN
Undersecretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs José Antonio Ocampo,
was published in 2013.

The IEO provides objective and independent evaluation on issues related to
the IMF. It operates independently of IMF management and the Executive Board. Its
mandates are:

To serve as a means to enhance the learning culture within the
Fund;

To strengthen the Fund’s external credibility; and

To support the Executive Board’s institutional governance and
oversight responsibilities.

Executive Directors welcomed the third external evaluation of the
Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). They thanked the Panel for its candid,
high‑quality assessment, and invaluable contribution. Directors welcomed
many of the Panel’s recommendations to further improve the IEO’s relevance
and effectiveness. They shared the Panel’s view that the IEO has played a
critical role in promoting the Fund’s accountability, external credibility,
and, to a certain extent, learning culture. In that light, they agreed that
the Board and management should send a strong signal across the institution
reaffirming the importance they attach to the IEO’s work.

Directors stressed that improving traction is a shared responsibility among
all concerned parties. The IEO’s increased interaction with management and
staff would raise awareness of its work, enable it to sharpen its analysis
and recommendations, and enhance ownership by management and staff to
implement necessary actions. While noting that staff’s familiarity with the
IEO’s work has recently increased and interaction strengthened, Directors
agreed that there remains scope for the IEO to focus more on fostering the
learning culture within the Fund. Engagement through IEO‑staff seminars and
IEO in‑reach at all stages of an evaluation could be helpful in that
regard. A few Directors, however, cautioned against institutionalizing
engagement and consultation with management and staff.

Directors welcomed the assessment that the IEO’s independence is firmly
established, and that the IEO enjoys a high degree of freedom in evaluating
issues relevant to the Fund. A number of Directors considered that the
Terms of Reference (TOR) remain appropriate, consistent with the IEO’s
mandate and role as an independent evaluator. A few other Directors saw
merit in the Panel’s suggestion to better define the scope of “operational
activities, including current programs” in the TOR, which in their view may
constrain the choice of topics for IEO evaluations.

Directors underscored the importance of strong ownership and active
engagement by the Board, especially through its Evaluation Committee (EVC).
In particular, most Directors supported the recommendation that the IEO, in
consultation with the EVC, should formalize transparent criteria for the
selection of evaluation topics and clearly explain to the Board the reasons
for the selection. A few other Directors noted that the current process has
worked well, striking the right balance between transparency and
independence.

With respect to the design of IEO reports and recommendations, most
Directors agreed that shorter reports written in plain English could be
more impactful, with a number of them stressing the importance of
preserving in‑depth analysis underpinning the evaluation. In this regard,
most Directors saw merit in applying the SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Relevant, Timely) criteria to IEO recommendations, while
recognizing the need to allow sufficient room for management to develop
appropriate implementation plans. A number of Directors also felt that
short reports prepared quickly by the IEO could provide useful inputs into
current topics under Board discussion, although a few others pointed to
their limited value added and potential interference with current
operations.

Directors concurred with the need to continue improving the follow‑up
process to Board‑endorsed IEO recommendations, and welcomed the
recommendation to reinforce the accountability of management and staff.
They appreciated the ongoing efforts to ensure that Management
Implementation Plans are SMART, and to address the backlog of open
management actions, particularly the work done by the Office of Internal
Audit. Directors broadly supported discussing the Periodic Monitoring
Report in a formal Board meeting, and discontinuing the Implementation
Status Report. A number of Directors suggested incorporating the
implementation of Board‑endorsed IEO recommendations into departments’
accountability frameworks.

Directors considered the recommendations to improve the summing up process
and IEO engagement with the IMFC. Most Directors concurred that the
Secretary’s Department should be tasked with preparing draft summings up
for Board meetings on IEO reports, with inputs from the IEO as an authoring
department prior to Board discussions, and following the standard summing
up process. On the Panel’s recommendation for the IEO Director to meet
regularly with the IMFC Chair and brief IMFC Deputies, Directors recognized
that it is at the discretion of the IMFC Chair or his Deputy, in
consultation with the IMFC membership. A number of Directors saw the
benefits of such approaches in raising the visibility and awareness of the
IEO’s work among the IMFC membership, while a few doubted their usefulness.
Directors stressed that outreach to the broader membership remains
essential to promote IEO work.

Directors considered the recommendations on the IEO’s staffing and budget.
Many Directors supported, or were open to considering, a review of human
resources (HR) practices that may disincentivize staff from working at the
IEO. Directors noted that this issue could be assessed in the broader
context of the ongoing comprehensive HR strategy work. A number of
Directors indicated their willingness to consider a modest increase in the
budget, if needed, for the IEO to take on additional work, while a few saw
scope to improve cost efficiency.

The recommendations of the Panel that have received broad support and
outstanding issues that warrant further consideration will be followed up
by the appropriate parties—the EVC, the IEO, staff, and management.
Directors will have further opportunities to discuss concrete proposals in
the coming months.

[1]
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Deputy Managing Director,
as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive
Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country's
authorities. An explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up
can be found here:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm
.